masseffectfandomcom-20200222-history
Forum:Weapon tables
Admittedly I have absolute contempt for a few of the administrators on this wiki, and I think the policies on the page are absolutely idiotic, I love Mass Effect enough to put up with this policy for this one project. I have created a table that eventually should cover all of the weapons pages. I tried initially to add weapons to all of the manufacturers but was blocked doing so. I figure tables would make more sense. Considering the fact that ME1 already has tables for their weapon types this would make sense. In my sandbox is an example of what I want to make for all weapon type pages. Don't expect me to play around with polices again. Oldag07 (talk) 21:45, February 17, 2013 (UTC) Comments Support, it is much more clear --DeldiRe 22:38, February 17, 2013 (UTC) I have to disagree that these tables would an improvement over the current system. The links to each weapon's main article are reduced in size and crowded next to the weapon's image (which also has to be reduced in size to fit into the table). The Manufacturer column has just as much space as the Weapon column, and it it seems odd to effectively emphasize such a minor detail over the weapon's actual name, image, and article link. The different stat columns both take up a lot of space and turn the table into a sea of numbers, which I find more difficult to interpret than the existing format. The Acquisition column is inconsistent in its organization; text for platform names is colored for no visible reason, some links are unnecessarily truncated, and the usage of punctuation and small text is haphazard. Lastly, I have to question why a table should be used at all in this case. The current organizational style is already clear and easy to read and navigate (having a section heading for each weapon allows navigation to that section from the Table of Contents, a shortcut which a table would remove). Tables have their uses and in many cases do improve a page, but I don't see how they would here. -- Commdor (Talk) 22:43, February 17, 2013 (UTC) I basically agree with Commdor. The current system is perfectly fine. Tali's no.1 fan (talk) 23:11, February 17, 2013 (UTC) Just a comment to what commdor said, the "sea of number" is surely a bit harder to read the first time but it permit an easy comparison between the guns. This is clearly a relevant information in term of gameplay. But i also agree that the current page is better in term of "lore" but less readable in term of gameplay. Maybe a split ? or a specific gameplay page for weapon with every informations on this issue (dammage, rate of fire, mods, ... it could be more readable than the current player notes) --DeldiRe 10:25, February 18, 2013 (UTC) :honestly, I think this is a good idea.--TW6464 (talk) 14:41, February 18, 2013 (UTC) ::Once again, this is a much worse system. If this is even to come close to being a replacement, then it needs some serious work. It is much more crowded, sloppy, and crammed. Lancer1289 (talk) 15:04, February 18, 2013 (UTC) :::I have to agree with you Lancer but I still think that this wiki could be more complete with separated articles on weapons "gameplay oriented" (with more numbers in table in order to compare weapons). --DeldiRe 15:44, February 18, 2013 (UTC) ::::Numbers, I've noticed, tend to complicate templates and usually lead to formatting issues. The current system does present all information, but does it in a way that is not crowded and cluttered. This isn't a replacement system for what is currently there. Lancer1289 (talk) 15:48, February 18, 2013 (UTC) :::::As I said, the actual template is surely the most suited for the purpose of this article. And, therefore the table for ME1 are maybe too "numberized". Nevertheless, in order to offer a complete wiki with every information, it is sad that we do not have a table who permit a compiraison of the weapons with their fire rate, their dammage, ammo (according to their level in ME3 as it is noted in ME1) This kinf of info are more than relevant for poeple looking for info to improve their efficacity on combat situation. But it is sure that it should be implementend in a separated page to avoid complexity in the template for regular users.--DeldiRe 09:03, February 19, 2013 (UTC) Frankly, I don't know what you're talking about. Sorry. The current Assault Rifles article mentions all the exact same info as the proposed table in a way that is perfectly accessible, so there is no real reason to make a change there. If you're talking about something else, I don't think this is the relevant area to talk about it. Tali's no.1 fan (talk) 11:38, February 19, 2013 (UTC) :I suggest a new pages with more information (like dammage of the weapons for each level, it doesn't exist now). And here is the perfect place to speak about it. It is a forum about weapons table.... Where else could i speak about this topic ? On your talk page ? On the talk page of Morinth article ?--DeldiRe 12:44, February 19, 2013 (UTC) ::This is not a forum about weapon tables in general, but about a certain assault rifle table proposal (see the link by the original poster). A better place to discuss your suggestion might be the assault rifle talk page or a forum of your own. It was a bit confusing that you seemed to be talking about something very different to what Oldag07 was earlier. Tali's no.1 fan (talk) 17:23, February 19, 2013 (UTC) Sure he proposed a model for assault rifle but in order to generalize it to every class of weapons. At least it what i understood. It is just an example of what can be done before a whole change (a sort of pilot). And the title of this forum is weapons table not assault rifle table :) But neverthelees, sorry if I was unclear --DeldiRe 18:16, February 19, 2013 (UTC) :The table is generalized and it not sloppy, disorganized, and crowded like this proposed one is. There is no need to replace it with the proposed once because it looks really bad and crowded next to the current system. Lancer1289 (talk) 20:42, February 19, 2013 (UTC) ::Tali', you said it better then I could. Yes, the assault rifle is a pilot table, not the end result. Lancer, I am confused what are you trying to say above. "The table is generalized and it not sloppy" I make grammatical errors all the time, but I have no clue what you are saying here. I am guessing based on previous comments that you feel my table is cluttered, ugly and disorganized. That certainly is my opinion of my armor table proposal that I made earlier. If you don't like how my table looks like, I get it. That is not a universal opinion. Quoting the talk page: :::"Can I just say that this actually looks pretty good?--TW6464 (talk) 15:48, February 5, 2013 (UTC)" :: I do intend to improve the look of the table by taking a cues from the a . Vertically aligned tables might help improve the aesthetics of the table even more. ::The primary advantages of my table is as follows:' :::* Sortability- Something that would be useful for single and multiplayer. What gun has the most damage. . . .I don't have to look at every single one, I just have to flip the chart. :::* Compactness, and non crowded table of contents :::* Aesthetics ::one of the reasons why I think this forum system really is ineffective is the fact that, it is only a small portion of people actually look at the page actually look at the talk page. I can assume that an even small proportion actually look at the policy forum (which still takes me forever to find). This is a recipe for an extreme form of groupthink. I digress. . . Oldag07 (talk) 16:36, February 22, 2013 (UTC) :The attitude of the proposer has thrown me right off of supporting this, and I'm not entirely sure what he means to accomplish. Can someone summarise exactly what he is proposing and why? Garhdo (talk) 16:39, February 22, 2013 (UTC) ::They want to change how we organize information because they don't like it, and because what they did was undone because of violation of site policy. They also refused to work with anyone or make any changes that they disagree with. ::The bottom line here is that no matter what, this table is in no way a replacement for the current system because it is sloppy to say the least. The current system presents all of the information that this "table" will, in a much more organized format. And one that is also more aesthetically pleasing and not remotely as crowded. The notion that the "table" is more aesthetically pleasing than the current system is something that I just cannot for the life of me see. Lancer1289 (talk) 21:19, February 22, 2013 (UTC) :: The proposal is sound. I also understand that I alienated the control freak so much that he is unwilling to do what is best for the wiki. So this is really a choice for the inside people of this wiki. Do what is best for the wiki, or appease the control freak..Oldag07 (talk) 22:56, February 22, 2013 (UTC) :::Wow. Your attitude is completely uncalled for. You insult me, breaking site policy in the process. :::Yet I am not the only one who has an issue with this. At least two others on this forum have issues with this, yet you choose to ignore them. Curious. Is this about a real proposal, or a vendetta because you broke site policy, were warned about it, chose to keep doing it, given a final warning, and only then did you go about it properly? :::This is not even remotely an adequate replacement for the current system, which does everything this...thing does, and in a much more presentable fashion. This is nothing but a half-done job that requires a huge amount of work to be adequate, let alone presentable. Yet you will not make any changes. You just ignore someone if they do not agree with you and just respond to people who like your ideas. Even if those who do not point out issues. Actually I take that question back, it is not a proposal, it is a vendetta. Lancer1289 (talk) 23:03, February 22, 2013 (UTC) Okay I've looked at the sandbox and my views are thus: the table simply consists of numbers of base stats which are not even represented to the player in game, making them pointless. Also presumably this will replace the existing weapon pages, meaning losing the background for the weapons, where they are found, guides and tactics for them, etc. So in conclusion - No. Bad idea. Garhdo (talk) 00:36, February 23, 2013 (UTC) ---- My 2 cents. I see the advantage of this proposal and I recognize that it is just a work in progress at this point. My opinion is that there are as many types of gamers as there are ways to present the information. This is a wiki the information should be easy to access and clear. Being able to sort an info page based on the facts you are searching for is an advantage. There too the information should be in-depth as well. I think rather then shooting an idea down, those that do not like it should propose what aspects need to be changed to make it work. That way you are working with the idea rather then fighting it. I like the idea of a sortable table but it does lack some flavor text information that some info searchers prefer. With work it could be an improvement. I would recommend that when you click on a heading it places the highest scores on top by default.TellNo1 (talk) 01:11, February 23, 2013 (UTC) ::Thing is, short of putting tables either in their own page, or tabling for example all assault rifles together as part of the Assault Rifles page, I'm not sure how or where this could be implemented without losing so much valuable information. Garhdo (talk) 01:24, February 23, 2013 (UTC) :::Simple brake it down into vital information and Flavor text information. Also dont be afraid to think out side of the box. I have heard a few people suggest braking the wiki up by edition (each ME I, II, III would be partitioned). True much information is repeated but an out of the box idea like that solves a lot of problems with cross game conflicts such as weapons that dont appear in 2 or 3, possibly a future 4. Flavor text info could be place in another section or page, that could be linked to the table. Example the weapon manufacturers could be in a different section, or on a different page, either is good. It is not vital inflammations but it is important to note. So long as you can easily link to the information is still available. :::I for example like seeing the fact & numbers. I like to compare tactics to optimize the best team possible. If the book that comes with the game and the in game information was enough then we would not need this wiki. The fact is there is a lot of information that is not available simply by playing the game. And to some gamers it makes a big difference in how they play. Example ME1 Stabilizers are a joke, yet they are a high level upgrade drop. To someone that plays to the numbers, many of the earlier upgrades are better then the higher level Upgrades. Had this information been better presented then perhaps players would not sell the best (lower leveled) upgrades. :::Another thing is that we could learn from other wikis. There are several that implore different organization that are simply easier to navigate. I have always upheld that traditions is a poor excuse for maintaining a bad production or organizational method. We should not be closed minded to a complete reorganization. If not to the wiki as a whole, then per section where it is beneficial. Just dont be afraid to look at it in a different way. :::Now that in mind. Start to think about it. What would it take to reorganize this section while incorporating better organizational tools?TellNo1 (talk) 01:59, February 23, 2013 (UTC) ::::So now we get even more complicated? I fail to see the logic in this. It would make the entire thing even more complicated than it already is. Specific things are to be noted on the individual pages, the main pages are for a general overview adn basic stats. You want specifics, then go to the page itself. This isn't about tradition, and I am still trying to figure out where that come from, it is about presenting a general overview of all of the weapons and basic stats. Specifics go on the individual weapon pages themselves, not on the main page. Otherwise they would have no use. ::::Nothing presented even remotely comes close to replacing the system we have now, and frankly, everything proposed so far either is not even close to being an adequate replacement, or makes everything even more complicated. I see no reason to change anything at the present time. The system works, it is brief, gives basic details, and has links for the more specific stuff. Putting something crude or something more complicated into the article just doesn't make one iota of sense. ::::And FYI, we are not closed minded, thanks for the insult by the way, we are very open to changes, just not when said changes are haphazard, crude, inefficient, make things even more complicated, or inefficient. Lancer1289 (talk) 02:09, February 23, 2013 (UTC)